ticketmaster_attraction_related

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior of returning the 'Fans Also Viewed' set and importantly discloses the empty-list response for attractions without recommendations. It doesn't mention whether the list is sorted, paginated, or how many results, but the empty-list guarantee is a valuable behavioral trait.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences totaling about 40 words. Every sentence carries semantic weight: what the tool does, what it maps to in the real UI, and the empty-list edge case. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With just one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, where the data comes from, and an edge case. The only thing missing is return shape or pagination details, but for a simple list tool this is quite complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that the 'id' identifies the attraction whose page contains the related attractions, clarifying it is an attraction id rather than a venue or event id. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('a Ticketmaster attraction's related attractions'), and the exact product feature ('Fans Also Viewed'). Clearly distinguishes from the sibling ticketmaster_attraction, events, and reviews tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains it returns recommendations shown on one attraction's own page, which implies use for discovery of similar attractions. Doesn't explicitly name the alternative for direct attraction info (ticketmaster_attraction), so no explicit exclusions, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.